Opinion Supreme Court’s AMU verdict paves way for defining character of minority institutions

On Friday, the Supreme Court stopped short of designating the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) as a minority institution. But its 4:3 verdict has provided a firm jurisprudential backing for clearing the controversy around AMU’s status. It lays the ground for satisfying the university’s longstanding quest to define itself as a minority institution. The judgment reverses the 1967 SC decision in S Azeez Basha v Union of India — the SC had then relied on a technical interpretation of the guarantee to religious minorities, in Article 30, to establish and run educational institutions. It had ruled that AMU was neither “established nor administered” by Muslims. Though the university evolved from the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College founded by Syed Ahmed Khan in 1877, the Court had held that the institution’s legal status rested on the AMU Act 1920 — this legislation incorporated the social reformer’s college and another educational body into one university. The Azeez Basha verdict thus concluded that AMU was actually “established” by a colonial government Act, later amended by two pieces of legislation in independent India. The SC ruled that “AMU had surrendered its minority status to the government”. Friday’s verdict, in contrast, draws on a more liberal reading of Article 30 to point out that the “minority character of institutions cannot be rejected if they are conferred legal character by government statutes.”

In 1981, Parliament amended the AMU Act to negate the 1967 judgment. In 2005, the university drew on this legislation to reserve 50 per cent seats in postgraduate medical courses for Muslim students. The decision was challenged before the Allahabad High Court which relied on the Supreme Court’s 1967 verdict to rule that AMU was not a minority institution. The HC struck down the reservation. This verdict was immediately challenged by the then UPA government at the Centre and the university’s governing body. But the AMU lost the Centre’s backing after the Narendra Modi-led NDA assumed office. In 2016, the Union government withdrew from the case, contending that it did not acknowledge AMU’s minority character. Friday’s verdict draws on constitutional debates and the SC’s earlier jurisprudence to arrive at an expansive and inclusive interpretation of Article 30 to insulate the university from the push and pull of the dominant politics of the day. The purpose of the Article is “to guarantee a ‘special right’ to religious and linguistic minorities that have established educational institutions. This special right is the guarantee of limited State regulation in the administration of the institution. The State must grant the minority institution sufficient autonomy to enable it to protect the essentials of its minority character,” CJI Chandrachud, who authored the majority verdict, said. Friday’s verdict should give AMU the autonomy to frame its recruitment and academic policies.

Advertisement

The Court’s interpretation of Article 30 is salutary at a time when the drive for uniformity in civil laws for all communities is picking up pace — the Centre and several state governments are pushing for the Uniform Civil Code, and the UCC is in the statute book of at least one state. In a large country of many diversities, the executive would do well to take a cue from the SC’s emphasis on “special or additional protection… to ensure the cultural fabric of religious and linguistic minorities”.